Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026

VP Ellipsis and Argument Structure Alternations in Muira Dargwa #

@cite{kalyakin-2026}

@cite{kalyakin-2026} argues that v-stranding VPE (vVPE) exists in Muira Dargwa (Nakh-Dagestanian) complex predicates: the light verb (= v) survives while its complement (= VP, containing the nominal root) is elided. The construction was first identified in Persian (@cite{toosarvandani-2009}); Muira Dargwa provides independent evidence and novel argument-structure alternation diagnostics.

Key Empirical Findings #

Causative alternation under vVPE: An inchoative antecedent can license a causative ellipsis site and vice versa — the same root with different Voice flavors. This is blocked in English VPE (@cite{merchant-2013}).
Antipassive blocking: Antipassive roots are coerced to v-adjunction (manner/activity position), placing them outside vVPE's deletion domain (VP). Antipassive roots therefore cannot be elided.
Again diagnostic: Under vVPE, BOTH repetitive and restitutive readings of again survive (@cite{kalyakin-2026} §4.1, exx. 52a–b). This contrasts with English VPE (only repetitive survives) and confirms the deletion domain is VP (complement of v), not vP. @cite{toosarvandani-2009} (ex. 90) independently shows both readings available for Persian vVPE.

Theoretical Analysis #

The analysis extends @cite{merchant-2013}'s [E]-feature theory: placing [E] on v (rather than Voice) yields a smaller deletion domain (VP rather than vP). This correctly predicts:

Voice mismatches tolerated (same as English VPE)
Transitivity/alternation mismatches tolerated (UNLIKE English VPE)
Lexical verb mismatches still blocked (V is inside VP)

The causative alternation tolerance follows directly from existing Voice decomposition (@cite{kratzer-1996}, @cite{cuervo-2003}): alternating pairs share the same root [vGO, vBE]; only Voice differs. Since Voice is outside vVPE's deletion domain, mismatches in Voice are tolerated.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.vVPE_mismatch_profile :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.voiceMismatch = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.transitivityMismatch = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.lexicalMismatch = false

The core prediction: vVPE tolerates both voice and transitivity mismatches while blocking lexical verb mismatches.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.englishVPE_more_restrictive :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.englishVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.transitivityMismatch = false ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.transitivityMismatch = true

English VPE has a strictly more restrictive profile than vVPE: it additionally blocks transitivity mismatches.

structure Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.AlternationDatum :

A datum for ellipsis under argument structure alternation.

description : String
Description
antecedentVoice : Minimalism.VoiceFlavor
Voice flavor of the antecedent
targetVoice : Minimalism.VoiceFlavor
Voice flavor of the ellipsis site
rootStructure : List Minimalism.VerbHead
Root event structure (shared between antecedent and target)
grammatical : Bool
Is the alternation grammatical under the given ellipsis type?

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprAlternationDatum.repr :

AlternationDatum → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

instance Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprAlternationDatum :

Repr AlternationDatum

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprAlternationDatum = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprAlternationDatum.repr }

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.inchoativeToCausative :

AlternationDatum

Inchoative antecedent → causative target (OK under vVPE). "The door opened. Then someone made it [open]." Voice: nonThematic → agentive; root: [vGO, vBE] shared.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.causativeToInchoative :

AlternationDatum

Causative antecedent → inchoative target (OK under vVPE). "Someone opened the door, and then it [opened] by itself." Voice: agentive → nonThematic; root: [vGO, vBE] shared.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.englishAlternationBlocked :

AlternationDatum

Same alternation is blocked in English VPE (@cite{merchant-2013}): v_trans ≠ v_unacc inside the deletion domain.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

The shared root structure [vCAUSE, vGO, vBE] yields different decompositions under different Voice flavors — this is the causative alternation from Voice.lean.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.causative_alternation_ok_under_vVPE :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.transitivityMismatch = true

The causative alternation is tolerated under vVPE because transitivity mismatches are allowed.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.causative_alternation_blocked_english :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.englishVPE Minimalism.Ellipsis.transitivityMismatch = false

The causative alternation is blocked under English VPE because transitivity mismatches are blocked.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.shared_vp_core :

have root := [Minimalism.VerbHead.vCAUSE , Minimalism.VerbHead.vGO , Minimalism.VerbHead.vBE ]; Minimalism.buildDecomposition Minimalism.voiceAgent root ≠ Minimalism.buildDecomposition Minimalism.voiceAnticausative root ∧ root = root

The same root structure is used in both alternants — the complement of v (= VP) is identical. This is why vVPE succeeds: it only requires identity of the VP, which contains the shared root.

Bridge: each datum's grammaticality matches Merchant's canMismatch prediction for the relevant ellipsis type and mismatch dimension. The connection is structural: AlternationDatum.grammatical was set to match the empirical judgment; canMismatch derives the same value from spine positions.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.antipassive_blocks_vVPE :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.rootInVVPEDomain RootPosition.adjoined = false

Antipassive roots in Muira Dargwa are coerced to v-adjunction, placing them outside vVPE's deletion domain. They therefore cannot be elided under vVPE.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.change_of_state_allows_vVPE :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.rootInVVPEDomain RootPosition.complement = true

Change-of-state roots (object-adjoined) ARE inside vVPE's deletion domain — they can be elided.

The hierarchy of mismatch tolerance across ellipsis types: sluicing < English VPE < vVPE. Each step down tolerates strictly more mismatches.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.vVPE_below_englishVPE :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.SpinePos.v.isBelow Minimalism.Ellipsis.SpinePos.Voice = true

vVPE's [E] position (v) is strictly below English VPE's (Voice). By monotonicity, any mismatch tolerated by English VPE is also tolerated by vVPE.

End-to-end chain: Voice severing (@cite{kratzer-1996}) → Merchant's deletion domain (@cite{merchant-2013}) → Kalyakin's empirical finding (@cite{kalyakin-2026}).

Step 1 (Voice.lean): The root [vCAUSE, vGO, vBE] yields a causative decomposition [vDO, vCAUSE, vGO, vBE] under agentive Voice but an inchoative [vCAUSE, vGO, vBE] under nonThematic Voice. The full decompositions differ, but the root (= VP content) is shared.

Step 2 (DeletionDomain.lean): Under vVPE ([E] on v), the deletion domain is VP. Transitivity (determined by v) is external to VP, so transitivity mismatches are tolerated.

Step 3 (this file): The datum — inchoative→causative alternation under vVPE is grammatical — matches the prediction.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.sluicing_voice_blocked_convergent :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.canMismatch Minimalism.Ellipsis.sluicing Minimalism.Ellipsis.voiceMismatch = false

Convergent prediction: Merchant's theory correctly predicts that sluicing (C[E]) blocks voice mismatches — Voice is inside TP, the deletion domain of sluicing. The SCSS corpus (@cite{anand-hardt-mccloskey-2021}, §5.5) independently confirms this: across 4,700 annotated sluices, zero antecedent–ellipsis site pairings exhibit active/passive voice mismatches. The same theoretical apparatus that Kalyakin extends to vVPE already works for sluicing.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.vVPE_both_again :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.vP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.VP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE = true

Under vVPE, BOTH repetitive and restitutive again survive. This contrasts with English VPE (only repetitive survives) and confirms the deletion domain is VP (complement of v), not vP.

@cite{kalyakin-2026} §4.1 (exx. 52a–b): both repetitive and restitutive ʔibrra 'again' are available under vVPE in Muira Dargwa. @cite{toosarvandani-2009} (ex. 90) independently shows both readings available for Persian vVPE.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.englishVPE_only_repetitive :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.vP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.englishVPE = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.VP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.englishVPE = false

English VPE deletes restitutive again: only repetitive survives. (@cite{merchant-2013}, building on Johnson 2004, von Stechow 1996).

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.again_distinguishes_vVPE_from_englishVPE :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.VP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.vVPE = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.againSurvives Minimalism.Ellipsis.AgainPosition.VP_adjunction Minimalism.Ellipsis.englishVPE = false

The again contrast directly distinguishes vVPE from English VPE: same test, different result — proving different deletion domains.

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.cprInVVPEDomain (cpr : Fragments.Dargwa.ComplexPredicates.AnnotatedCPr) :

Is a CPr's NV inside vVPE's deletion domain? The fragment's AnnotatedCPr stores RootPosition (from Core.Lexical.LevinClass); this function bridges to the Minimalist rootInVVPEDomain from DeletionDomain.lean.

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.cprInVVPEDomain cpr = Minimalism.Ellipsis.rootInVVPEDomain cpr.rootPosition

Instances For

Change-of-state NVs (complement position) are inside vVPE's deletion domain: they can be elided.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.manner_outside_domain :

cprInVVPEDomain Fragments.Dargwa.ComplexPredicates.runCPr = false ∧ cprInVVPEDomain Fragments.Dargwa.ComplexPredicates.jumpCPr = false

Manner/activity NVs (adjoined position) are outside vVPE's deletion domain: they survive ellipsis. This is why antipassive roots (coerced to adjunction) block vVPE.

structure Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.NVDropDatum :

Datum for the NV-drop constituency test. @cite{kalyakin-2026} §3.2 distinguishes vVPE from argument ellipsis (AE):

vVPE: NV+argument deleted together (constituent = VP)
AE: argument alone deleted, NV survives
*NV alone deleted, argument survives → ungrammatical The ungrammaticality of NV-only deletion proves the elided constituent is VP (containing both NV and argument), not just NV.

description : String
nvDropped : Bool
argDropped : Bool
grammatical : Bool

Instances For

instance Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprNVDropDatum :

Repr NVDropDatum

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprNVDropDatum = { reprPrec := Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprNVDropDatum.repr }

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.instReprNVDropDatum.repr :

NVDropDatum → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.nvArgDrop :

NV + argument both dropped (= vVPE): grammatical.

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.nvArgDrop = { description := "vVPE: NV+arg elided together", nvDropped := true, argDropped := true, grammatical := true }

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.argOnlyDrop :

Argument alone dropped (= argument ellipsis): grammatical.

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.argOnlyDrop = { description := "AE: argument elided, NV survives", nvDropped := false, argDropped := true, grammatical := true }

Instances For

def Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.nvOnlyDrop :

NV alone dropped, argument survives: ungrammatical. This rules out NV-drop as a process distinct from vVPE — you can't delete just the NV without its complement.

Equations

Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.nvOnlyDrop = { description := "NV-only drop: ungrammatical", nvDropped := true, argDropped := false, grammatical := false }

Instances For

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.nv_drop_constituency :

nvArgDrop.grammatical = true ∧ argOnlyDrop.grammatical = true ∧ nvOnlyDrop.grammatical = false

The NV-drop test confirms constituent deletion: NV+arg is a constituent (VP), NV alone is not.

Bridge: Muira Dargwa, Persian, British English share [E] on v (= vVPE), while Bangla's deletion domain is vP (= English VPE with LV evacuation via head movement).

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.dargwa_british_parallel :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.muiraDargwaVVPE.ellipsisType.ePosition = Minimalism.Ellipsis.britishDoVVPE.ellipsisType.ePosition ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.muiraDargwaVVPE.virRequired = Minimalism.Ellipsis.britishDoVVPE.virRequired

Muira Dargwa and British do pattern together: same [E] position, no VIR, arg-structure alternations tolerated.

theorem Phenomena.Ellipsis.Studies.Kalyakin2026.persian_stricter_than_dargwa :

Minimalism.Ellipsis.persianVVPE.ellipsisType.ePosition = Minimalism.Ellipsis.muiraDargwaVVPE.ellipsisType.ePosition ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.persianVVPE.virRequired = true ∧ Minimalism.Ellipsis.muiraDargwaVVPE.virRequired = false

Persian has same [E] position as Muira Dargwa but stricter identity: VIR blocks arg-structure alternations in Persian that Dargwa allows.